![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hi! On Fri 2006-11-03 12:13:02, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 09:57:12AM +0100, Pavel Machek (pavel@ucw.cz) wrote: > > > So, kqueue API and structures can not be usd in Linux. > > > > Not sure what you are smoking, but "there's unsigned long in *bsd > > version, lets rewrite it from scratch" sounds like very bad idea. What > > about fixing that one bit you don't like? > > It is not about what I dislike, but about what is broken or not. > Putting u64 instead of a long or some kind of that _is_ incompatible > already, so why should we even use it? Well.. u64 vs unsigned long *is* binary incompatible, but it is similar enough that it is going to be compatible at source level, or maybe userland app will need *minor* ifdefs... That's better than two completely different versions... > And, btw, what we are talking about? Is it about the whole kevent > compared to kqueue in kernelspace, or just about what structure is being > transferred between kernelspace and userspace? > I'm sure, it was some kind of a joke to 'not rewrite *bsd from scratch > and use kqueue in Linux kernel as is'. No, it is probably not possible to take code from BSD kernel and "just port it". But keeping same/similar userland interface would be nice. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-11-05 11:23 [W:1.605 / U:0.050 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||